Suspect replacement for Lingers might come down to venue - size of ground, need for sustained speed, total km needing to be travelled on the wing and all that. Quite a few options even if he is irreplaceable. Also, happy that Lions weren’t tested this weekend.....much like Dogs v Saints the week before we got them. 

In my opinion, Weid failed big time when he shanked the third goal he should of made. We were well on top, he was not far out, there was no obvious pressure. 
He is supposed to be a Key position forward. The difficult one’s leave to frittata or Kossy spinning in circles.  
the ones basically straight in front

bbb. Bread and butter
 

On 5/28/2021 at 10:56 PM, binman said:

Id drop weed.

But I admit I may not be very objective.

Backed the dees over 39 points.

He shanked a shot to make it 42 points. Then his next two kicks, both of which should have set up scoring shots, were dead set clangers.

Id still drop him. One tackle. And 10 half jogs and coraaling.

Four possessions is rubbish.

Sure 3 goals, but 2 were gifts. And he dropped mutiple marks that he should have swallowed 

Problem is now atm. VFL players aren't getting any chance to demand selection with no games being played.

4 hours ago, dee-tox said:

This post might upset a few people but hasn't Vanders regularly played wing?

Heard he was back fit again. While his kicking is miss and hit, you can't deny he brings a certain physicality to the game. I'd much prefer him to Baker particularly if it is a one-off..

We're past this now as a club.

We don't lack physicality any more, and we're getting it from those who can bring other skills to the side.

I think McLuggage could well be in Harmes Crosshairs this week, and if so he may end up spending a fair bit of time on the wing

I reckon it's gotta be Tom Sparrow who comes in though

25 minutes ago, Dwight Schrute said:

Sparrow

Or as @binman likes to say..

"Swallow" "Cums" In..

Sorry I couldn't help myself!

16 hours ago, A F said:

We lose too much offence if we play a negating role on the attacking wing. Unless we flip Brayshaw to the attacking wing.

I think I prefer Gus playing defensive wing and Salem, Rivers, Hunt, Jordon or even Jackson or Hibberd playing the attacking wing.

That said, I do like Harmes' ability to negate and attack, so maybe I'm talking myself into your idea. ?

It has been obvious to most on here since 2018 that Harmes' best role is offensive, lockdown mid - a role he played to perfection on Friday night (after 2 years of mediocrity)

Let's not mess with this again.

7 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

It has been obvious to most on here since 2018 that Harmes' best role is offensive, lockdown mid - a role he played to perfection on Friday night (after 2 years of mediocrity)

Let's not mess with this again.

I agree, but it depends if he can play that offensive lockdown mid role on the wing. It's possible.

10 hours ago, Pates said:

Having a think about the changes, will a bit of it depend on which ground we play at? If it's at the SCG, being a smaller ground, the idea of having a player that can run all day on a smaller ground might not be so required. I think at the SCG Hibberd would be really suited to the wing role, he has a penetrating kick and has an amazing ability to get himself out of trouble. 

Its not a bad idea. Hibberd doesnt seem to have lost any of his speed.

But who goes into Hibbos role?

On 5/29/2021 at 10:20 AM, Jaded said:

The club clearly has their heart set on a Jackson Weideman double act. They brought in BB to replace Tmac. Then Tmac decided to go be a sensational player again and now the plans have gone to [censored]. 

I haven't read the whole thread so someone else might have asked this question: Is this the week we see the Tom McDonald-to-the-wing experiment? That would mean B Brown comes in for Langdon.

There's one obvious reason why not and one less obvious reason. The obvious reason is that McDonald is our best tall forward so we should leave him there. The less obvious reason is that the plan must have assumed Langdon would be on the "offensive" wing and McDonald on the defensive side. With Langdon out, would Tom be expected to be the "offensive" winger?

So, I don't think it will happen. My gut is telling me we'll see a different experiment with Langdon's replacement being Bowey, with Hunt and Rivers sharing Langdon's wing. 

Edited May 31, 20214 yr by La Dee-vina Comedia

While I think its a fun suggestion I really doubt they will consider Hibberd on a wing regardless of how small the ground is. The guy has been terrific down back as out solid best 6. But he doesn't have the tank/gut running. He's one I notice often with hands on knees after a few big contests really sucking it in. His role is too important down back with the way we structure to bring him further up the ground.

I think Sparrow will definitely come back in. I doubt they bring in a fresh face like Bowey for such a big game and Baker hasn't showed much at Casey of late to really be an option on the wing.

My guess is they will rotate players through that position. Guys like ANB, Sparrow and even some of the other mids.

2 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I haven't read the while thread so someone else might have asked this question: Is this the week we see the Tom McDonald-to-the-wing experiment? That would mean B Brown comes in for Langdon.

He certainly has the endurance Tom. But playing predominantly on a wing for a game? I don't think we will see it. While I appreciate the work he's put in to his body and improving his agility he's still not nimble enough IMO for that role for long periods. His speed off the mark is decent but repeat sprints after repeat sprints I'm not sure. He is relying an awful lot on the fend off at the moment in contests and as seen on Friday it has got him into trouble. 

Short stints of Tmac on a wing or further up the ground are great. As a whole game winger I don't think so.

One thing this year is you haven't seen Goodwin move players around too much to cover player losses. He has brought in players to do a job as a like for like.

I think thats the right approach. You don't want to change what is working and for example another game with our back 6 together is more important in the grander scheme than moving a Rivers or Hibberd or Salem to a wing..

If Langdon is out It is amost a certainty they'll bring in Baker,

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

One thing this year is you haven't seen Goodwin move players around too much to cover player losses. He has brought in players to do a job as a like for like.

I think thats the right approach. You don't want to change what is working and for example another game with our back 6 together is more important in the grander scheme than moving a Rivers or Hibberd or Salem to a wing..

If Langdon is out It is amost a certainty they'll bring in Baker,

This makes a lot of sense.

3 hours ago, jnrmac said:

It has been obvious to most on here since 2018 that Harmes' best role is offensive, lockdown mid - a role he played to perfection on Friday night (after 2 years of mediocrity)

Let's not mess with this again.

Thankfully the HB experiment would appear to be a thing of the past.  I was calling for the above all of last year.  Fish out of water rear of centre in a mostly 'defender' role.

He's like Seabiscuit (at least the Hollywood version).  When the opponent pulls up alongside and they go eyeball to eyeball... it sets him on ballistic mode!

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

One thing this year is you haven't seen Goodwin move players around too much to cover player losses. He has brought in players to do a job as a like for like.

I think thats the right approach. You don't want to change what is working and for example another game with our back 6 together is more important in the grander scheme than moving a Rivers or Hibberd or Salem to a wing..

If Langdon is out It is amost a certainty they'll bring in Baker,

This is definitely how Goodwin has tended to do things. But he did bring in Baker to play wing against the Kangaroos when the out was Viney.

Also, I would argue that Langdon is our most difficult player to replace. Not in terms of ability, but we just don't have another player of his type, with running ability and skill. (If we did, they would be playing on the other wing.)

I think Jones comes into the squad for Langdon, not sure if he plays as the sub and Sparrow starts or Sparrow keeps the sub role and Jones starts.

 

7 hours ago, grazman said:

Vanders and Mitch Robinson going head to head.  I like it!

Vanders and another 20 odd who played that day

3 hours ago, Yung Blood said:

He certainly has the endurance Tom. But playing predominantly on a wing for a game? I don't think we will see it. While I appreciate the work he's put in to his body and improving his agility he's still not nimble enough IMO for that role for long periods. His speed off the mark is decent but repeat sprints after repeat sprints I'm not sure. He is relying an awful lot on the fend off at the moment in contests and as seen on Friday it has got him into trouble. 

Short stints of Tmac on a wing or further up the ground are great. As a whole game winger I don't think so.

Well said and spit on besides Tommy leads our forward line.

1 hour ago, Fat Tony said:

This is definitely how Goodwin has tended to do things. But he did bring in Baker to play wing against the Kangaroos when the out was Viney.

Also, I would argue that Langdon is our most difficult player to replace. Not in terms of ability, but we just don't have another player of his type, with running ability and skill. (If we did, they would be playing on the other wing.)

Didn't Toby Bedford come 1st or 2nd in the time trial pre-season.  Would be nice to see him get another opportunity

6 minutes ago, demonglory said:

Didn't Toby Bedford come 1st or 2nd in the time trial pre-season.  Would be nice to see him get another opportunity

I am a bit surprised that Bedford has not trialled playing wing at all given his speed and endurance mix and our needs.

On 5/29/2021 at 5:37 PM, binman said:

A couple of things nev.

I meant it is woeful that both of our key forwards apply poor levels of pressure. They both concern me. 

And I understand your point about competition for spots, but by the very same logic it was a strange decision to drop Brown not weed for the crows game. 

Brown was picked first on form. And both had almost identical stats and impact (which was not great) against the blues.

So why drop Brown?

I suspect it was to give weed a run at afl level. And have a look at the set up with him as the go to forward.

I'm not advocating Brown come in. But they wedged themselves a bit.

And bottom line Brown is a better footballer.

Takes his marks. Is stronger in the contest. Is a harder match up that demands more defensive coverage. And is a proven goal kicker. 

Brown has the runs on the board. Weed doesn't. 

Because neither apply enough pressure you can't have both in the same team.

And without question Id have Brown over weed. 

Brown unfortunately is just horribly out of form. The VFL on pause doesn't help much,  but an 'in form' Brown, in about 2 months time, would be a greate outcome

Edited May 31, 20214 yr by Dee*ceiving

7 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

We're past this now as a club.

We don't lack physicality any more, and we're getting it from those who can bring other skills to the side.

Yeah, I know where you are coming from but if Langdon is out for only one week then maybe vanders is a better option than Baker who seems too timid for AFL.

And if the game is played on the smaller SCG where you almost bypass the wings then maybe it is a good defensive option?

18 minutes ago, dee-tox said:

Yeah, I know where you are coming from but if Langdon is out for only one week then maybe vanders is a better option than Baker who seems too timid for AFL.

And if the game is played on the smaller SCG where you almost bypass the wings then maybe it is a good defensive option?

Vanders turn the ball over too much for mine. I think his senior team days are past him.

6 hours ago, jnrmac said:

One thing this year is you haven't seen Goodwin move players around too much to cover player losses. He has brought in players to do a job as a like for like.

I think thats the right approach. You don't want to change what is working and for example another game with our back 6 together is more important in the grander scheme than moving a Rivers or Hibberd or Salem to a wing..

If Langdon is out It is amost a certainty they'll bring in Baker,

 

4 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

This makes a lot of sense.

Yep, makes sense, but it'll be interesting to see what they do. I'm intrigued by @Nasher's comments RE each player trains two roles. What's the point in this strategy if when injuries occur, you bring in like for likes?